Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Are Ohio Public Employees Over-compensated?

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Are Ohio Public Employees Over-compensated?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 346 through 360 (of 363 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #427883

    gramarye
    Participant

    DavidF wrote >>
    It’s overt class warfare. The amount of wealth for upper class keeps increasing at an exponential rate. Shared sacrifice is verboten to even talk about.

    The underlying assumption here, is that taxpayers are somehow not already sacrificing. “Shared sacrifice” is often trotted out by advocates of higher taxes and higher spending. Of course, these “shared sacrifices” seem to be an awful lot of some people sacrificing and a lot of others being the people receiving the sacrifices.

    My idea of a shared sacrifice on the federal level would be cutting spending enough to balance the federal budget. On the state level, where balanced budget requirements already exist, shared sacrifice means cutting spending to bring it in line with revenue.

    We have only one option. Continue to create more job insecurity, continue to drive more people into bankruptcy, continue to tear down the few jobs in this country that have any kind of security.

    Job security comes from being good at your job. When it comes from institutional rules that protect those who are bad at their jobs as much as those that are good at their jobs, then yes, getting rid of such barriers to replacing deadweight with performing workers is an institutional improvement. Those who are bad at their jobs should not enjoy job security in the public sector any more than they enjoy it in the private sector.

    And of course it’s a horrible thing to take a job under the assumption that you might not have to work and worry your entire life. That maybe, just maybe you are allowed to have a few years at the very end to simply enjoy life. Nope, unless you are a ceo, it’s your job, nay your patriotic duty to work for less and less up until the day you die.

    I take no position on whether people should contribute 10% or 25% of their gross towards retirement. What I *do* want to achieve is a system in which I’m not expected to subsidize the standards of living in retirement of those who contributed 10% to put them on the same level as the people who contributed 25%.

    #427884

    Andrew Hall
    Member

    lifeliberty wrote >>
    I’ve seen union people fired for many different things, those don’t make the news either. to think they don’t or can’t get fired is immature. again, job security in no way equals lifetime employment.
    I honestly think this discussion is pointless. I don’t see it changing anything or anyone’s opinion about what they think they know. I will say, what you see from the inside is completely different from what is shown on the outside. I would hope people would not be so guilible as to believe what they have been spoonfed, but unfortunately that isn’t what I’ve been shown.
    I do think the bill will pass, and we’ll see what we’ve got to work with after that.

    Very true. It is also immature to think that non-union/private biz just fires people at will and without regard.

    I don’t think the discussion is worthless though. The main reason is that this is Round One. The looming budget issues and the persistent anti-government feelings aren’t going to go away with the passage of SB5. My sole intent is to illuminate factors I see and are getting ignored by both sides who wish to spin the matters in their own way. I think that SB5 is probably a cure worse than the ill though.

    A.

    #427885

    Bear
    Participant

    I suspect the amount of complaining about public-sector jobs is a pretty simple function of the gap between these two lines.

    #427886

    Andrew Hall
    Member

    Bear wrote >>
    I suspect the amount of complaining about public-sector jobs is a pretty simple function of the gap between these two lines.

    Aren’t those numbers on two separate scales?

    A.

    #427887
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Andrew Hall wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>
    I suspect the amount of complaining about public-sector jobs is a pretty simple function of the gap between these two lines.

    Aren’t those numbers on two separate scales?
    A.

    Sure seem to be.

    #427888

    Bear
    Participant

    Andrew Hall wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>
    I suspect the amount of complaining about public-sector jobs is a pretty simple function of the gap between these two lines.

    Aren’t those numbers on two separate scales?
    A.

    Yep — which is neither here nor there, but now that I look more closely, the difference in the increments is more substantial than I’d noticed, so the magnitude of the gap might not always correspond to the intuition. Thanks.

    My point was that there’s greater variability in private-sector than in public-sector employment, and complaining about public-sector employees will most likely be greatest when private-sector employment hits a trough.

    #427889

    Coy
    Participant

    Andrew Hall wrote >>

    lifeliberty wrote >>
    I’ve seen union people fired for many different things, those don’t make the news either. to think they don’t or can’t get fired is immature. again, job security in no way equals lifetime employment.
    I honestly think this discussion is pointless. I don’t see it changing anything or anyone’s opinion about what they think they know. I will say, what you see from the inside is completely different from what is shown on the outside. I would hope people would not be so guilible as to believe what they have been spoonfed, but unfortunately that isn’t what I’ve been shown.
    I do think the bill will pass, and we’ll see what we’ve got to work with after that.

    Very true. It is also immature to think that non-union/private biz just fires people at will and without regard.
    A.

    Well, not exactly. I worked for a private corporation and know of specific instances where workers were fired to make room for another employee a manager had slept with, to avoid a manager getting fired for inappropriate relationships with coworkers and their families, because an employee spoke up about sexual discrimination, because employees spoke up about unfair labor practices, and more than once just because they “didn’t like” the guy.
    The last time someone got fired for “not being likable” (by management) they went to the closest competitor and became a thorn in the side of the original business… That actually happened more than once in various instances.
    One of the biggest problems of this company was an astronomical turnover rate that actually cost huge amounts of money in time, paperwork, and training. Not to mention the unemployment compensation that ALWAYS was allowed due to completely failing to follow the rules in properly terminating employees.

    Unions protect the employee, AND the business, from suffering from unjust terminations.
    And they also give clear guidelines on how and when you can justly terminate… thus saving unemployment compensation.

    #427890

    lifeliberty
    Participant

    Andrew Hall wrote >>
    I think that SB5 is probably a cure worse than the ill though.
    A.

    I agree. If anything, hopefully this will stimulate people to get out and vote next election.

    #427891

    Andrew Hall
    Member

    Coy wrote
    One of the biggest problems of this company was an astronomical turnover rate that actually cost huge amounts of money in time, paperwork, and training. Not to mention the unemployment compensation that ALWAYS was allowed due to completely failing to follow the rules in properly terminating employees.
    Unions protect the employee, AND the business, from suffering from unjust terminations.

    That was my point and anecdotes about poorly-run businesses are just as demonstrative as anecdotes about non/malfeasant public employees. A well-run business follows the same procedures that Antonio is pointing to as being a bad result of unions. You make sure what you think happened was what really happened, you document and you are thorough. You don’t just instantly fire people and expect there to be no consequences.

    Compliance manuals and seminars aren’t that expensive either.

    A.

    #427892

    HeySquare
    Participant

    Snarf wrote >>
    My uncle, whom I don’t care for, always made light of the fact that he could do very little at work for DSCC, never be fired, have great benefits and retire with an awesome pension. Always like a joke to him.

    Isn’t the DSCC part of the military? why would you bring that up as part of this thread?

    #427893
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    HeySquare wrote >>

    Snarf wrote >>
    My uncle, whom I don’t care for, always made light of the fact that he could do very little at work for DSCC, never be fired, have great benefits and retire with an awesome pension. Always like a joke to him.

    Isn’t the DSCC part of the military? why would you bring that up as part of this thread?

    Federal civil service sure, but not uniformed service.

    #427894

    joev
    Participant

    The Economist says no.

    #427895

    gk
    Member
    #427896

    foxforcefive
    Participant

    Wow…that’s two hours of my life that I will never get back.

    #427897

    ehill27
    Participant

    Pay raises, much more to change if bill passes
    Sunday, March 6, 2011 02:58 AM
    By Alan Johnson – THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

    …Two state employees interviewed by The Dispatch discussed how changes in collective bargaining would affect their jobs and lives.

    Mary Coburn, 43, an unemployment-benefits processor for the Department of Job and Family Services, earns about $23 an hour after 20 years with the state. As a single mother of three, Coburn said she lives “paycheck to paycheck.”

    Mandatory “furlough days” last year cost her about $2,000, Coburn said. Her share of health-care premiums costs another $2,200. Vision and dental care are part of the package.

    Eugene Davis, 57, has been working as a corrections officer at the North Central Correctional Institution in Marion for 16years. He earns about $21 an hour and lost $1,700 from his paycheck last year because of furlough days.

    Davis relies on his wife’s health-care insurance because he said the state’s family plan was too expensive.

    Curtailing collective bargaining could send him back to his home state of Georgia, which he left in 1992, Davis said.

    “I have no intentions of staying in Ohio,” he said. “I won’t be able to pay my bills. I don’t look forward to the struggles that my peers are going to be going through. … A lot of people are barely making ends meet now.”

    Davis said he gets upset when people accuse state workers of having cushy jobs with generous benefits.

    “I would love one of these politicians to shadow me just one day on the job,” Davis said. “I have a great job, and it pays me well. But you walk into that prison on a high level of stress. You have to be vigilant every hour of the day.”

Viewing 15 posts - 346 through 360 (of 363 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: